Yeah I'm sure they'd prefer to live in a western-backed mockery of democracy like Afghanistan, Iraq or Haiti.

They prefer to live in a country where they are free to elect their leaders and where the wealth of the coutry is not being stolen by one family. All people want freedom. You can only deny them for so long before they get fed up and show you who's the boss...with a little help from the Allies of course

Lybia only had that kind of HDI because of Khadafi, so your point is moot.

Tunisia too.

But if you implies that Africa can only develop with leadesrs that can act selvagely agressively against the world order rules, then I say to suppoort dictators in every country of the continent and then after they develop it they should resign and let democracy get on.
Thats not really the case.

Btw check Lybia chart, they had a very high pib per capita in the 70's :P

They prefer to live in a country where they are free to elect their leaders and where the wealth of the coutry is not being stolen by one family. All people want freedom. You can only deny them for so long before they get fed up and show you who's the boss...with a little help from the Allies of course

The wealth of the country is going to be stolen by the west, just like they've done so many times before. Hypocrite.

They don't need your "help" or the sanctimonious attitude/discourse. It's an internal affair.

But if you implies that Africa can only develop with leadesrs that can act selvagely agressively against the world order rules, then I say to suppoort dictators in every country of the continent and then after they develop it they should resign and let democracy get on.
Thats not really the case.

Btw check Lybia chart, they had a very high pib per capita in the 70's :P

It's not Gadaffi's job to "organise" that country into anything. No one asked him to do that. Let the people freely choose who they want to "organise" their country.

I enjoy hearing you bleating on about your opposition to foreign intervetions as if you could do anything about it. Better put up or shut it

Of course it is. It's not like he ousted the monarchy alone. :retard: And even if he weren't, it's not up to you, Mr. interventionist (see how I wrote it correctly), to decide who's the leader of Libya.

Once again, it is necessary to review a timeline to definitively establish the premeditated, Western-backed nature of the current "revolutionary" conflagration consuming the Middle East and Northern Africa.

1980's: US-CIA backed National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL) made multiple attempts to assassinate Qaddafi and initiate armed rebellion throughout Libya.
2005: NFSL's Ibrahim Sahad founds the National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO) in London England.
2011: Early February, the London based NCLO calls for a Libyan "Day of Rage," beginning the "February 17th revolution."
2011: Late February NFSL/NCLO's Ibrahim Sahad is leading opposition rhetoric, literally in front of the White House in Washington D.C. Calls for no-fly zone in reaction to unsubstantiated accusations Qaddafi is strafing "unarmed protesters" with warplanes.
2011: Late February Senators Lieberman and McCain and UK PM David Cameron call for providing air cover for Libyan rebels as well as providing them additional arms.
2011: Early March; it is revealed UK SAS special forces are already operating inside Libya.

In retrospect, the orchestrated Western-backed nature of the Tunisian, Egyptian, and Libyan unrest is clear. However, as the events played out, especially in the early stages, the corporate-owned mainstream media committed itself to breathtaking propagandizing. In Egypt, crowds of 50,000 were translated into "crowds of 2 million" through boldfaced lies, tight camera angles and disingenuous propagandists like BBC's Jon Leyne. In Libya, the initial armed nature of the rebellion was omitted and the unrest was portrayed as "peaceful unarmed protests."

Perhaps most diabolical of all is the manner in which the mainstream media portrayed Egypt's opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei. Indeed, ElBaradei was at the very center of the protests, having returned to Egypt a year earlier in February 2010 to assemble his "National Front for Change" with the help of Egypt's "youth movements" led by the US State Department trained April 6 Movement and Google's Wael Ghonim. But we were all told he "just flew in," and that he was viewed with "suspicion" by the West. We were also told that Hosni Mubarak was still our "chosen man" and reports even went as far as claiming (unsubstantiated claims) that Mubarak was preparing to flee to Tel Aviv, Israel of all places, and that Israel was airlifting in weapons to bolster his faltering regime.

Obviously those "attempts" to save Mubarak's regime failed, if they ever even took place. And on the eve of Mubarak's fall, the US eventually turned a full 180 degrees around from defending him, to demanding he step down. As George Soros and the Neo-Con packed National Endowment for Democracy fund the drafting of the new Egyptian constitution and the US prepares funding to back Egypt's opposition ahead of elections, it is quite clear that US-Israeli "support" in this case was designed to tarnish Mubarak and play on anti-Israeli/American hatred the globalists have been cultivating for decades.

With amazing "foresight," the Council on Foreign Relations' magazine Foreign Affairs reported in March 2010 the following:

"Further, Egypt’s close relationship with the United States has become a critical and negative factor in Egyptian politics. The opposition has used these ties to delegitimize the regime, while the government has engaged in its own displays of anti-Americanism to insulate itself from such charges. If ElBaradei actually has a reasonable chance of fostering political reform in Egypt, then U.S. policymakers would best serve his cause by not acting strongly. Somewhat paradoxically, ElBaradei’s chilly relationship with the United States as IAEA chief only advances U.S. interests now. "

Fully realizing US or Israeli support for ElBaradei would destroy any chance for the "revolution's" success, it appears that the cartoonish act of overtly, even oafishly supporting Mubarak in the early stages of the unrest was a deliberate attempt to shift the ire of the Egyptian people toward him, and their suspicions away from globalist stooge ElBaradei.

We now see a similar campaign unfolding in Libya against Qaddafi, with rumors once again circulating that Israel is trying to save the embattled regime by hiring mercenaries, and even claims being made that Qaddafi is Jewish. Mirroring the cartoonish propaganda aimed at galvanizing Mubarak's opposition, we should be careful while interpreting these ambiguous and perfectly timed "revelations" regarding Libya's Qaddafi.

Libya's opposition has been backed by the West for over two decades with their NFSL/NCLO leadership currently divided between Washington, London, and the globalist-hideout of Dubai. It is hard to believe that Israel, a creation and tool of the London and Wall Street banking oligarchs, would somehow be working to save Qaddafi while Joe Lieberman and John McCain work to arm rebels, provide them air support, and recognize them as the legitimate government of Libya.

It is often said, the first causality of war is the truth. There certainly is a war raging in Libya and one of the many weapons being deployed is deception, as it has been even as Sun Tzu first wrote "all war is based on deception," over 2,500 years ago.

stalin organised the country from sick puppy to world strongman...his brutal method to industrialise the country, using his and the surrounding population as expendable batteries of the state paved the way for the gargarin to win the space race...a massive human cost for a greater future good...sad that money is a habit...ceasers model was the real deal tho...pity he got knifed hard on the dancefloor... Yeah, there can be good dictators i believe... Rare tho

Muammar Gaddafi has no similarities with such tyrants as Hitler or Stalin. The future of Libya should be decided by Libyan people. As we see, the international community has made great efforts since the Libyan crisis started. The representatives of Libyan government have agreed to cease fire during the talk launched by the African Union. We all hope the Libyan situation can be eased by peaceful negotiations.
However, some colonial powers are still imposing war on Libya. They have been continuously bombing non-military facilities and killing innocent civilians in the name of protecting Libyan people. But the civilians they claim to protect are actually anti-government forces. Up to now, the military attacking has made the death toll rise to 114, causing severe humanitarian catastrophe.

Of course it is. It's not like he ousted the monarchy alone. :retard: And even if he weren't, it's not up to you, Mr. interventionist (see how I wrote it correctly), to decide who's the leader of Libya.

I don't think that's true. What all human beings want is to be safe from oppression, but that is not exactly the same thing. Nobody wants a tyrant who abuses and terrorises you or your kin and strips your country of its wealth. But to presume that means that everybody desires Western-style democracy (far less its sudden arrival out of nowhere) is a pretty arrogant Western idea that has been repeatedly disproved. Many people in non-Western societies would be content enough to be ruled by a fatherly-figure, strict without being cruel, and only mildly corrupt. That is not to mean they don't desire further freedoms, it only means that they prefer less freedom within a system that respects their ways and culture rather than more freedom under a system that is alien to that culture.

We have no right to be involved in Libya in order to install our idea of democracy, only to aid Libyans who want reform and avoid their being physically exterminated by a violent tyrant. But just what exactly is the extent and the sort of reform they want is something that only Libyans can settle.

I don't think anybody, neither in Libya nor in the Arab world, nor even in the West, wants another Iraq-style fiasco. If the West only cared about oil in this case, it only had to wait a couple of weeks until Gaddafi stamped out the revolt with an iron fist. Dear old Muammar has proven his willingness to keep Europe's oil and gasoduts well furnished as long as the money keeps coming into his bank account. No need for bombs to getour share of his energy resources. Bussiness as usual.

What's is striking in this case is that -in sharp contrast to Iraq- the case for intervention hasn't come from the top down, no need for invented excuses and months of spin and propaganda, in this case rather the opposite has happened. Sarkozy in particular -ever the populist and the opportunist- has cynically jumped at the chance to take the lead of a public opinion over most of Europe that was shocked by the passiveness and the lack of empathy with which Western leaders were reacting to popular revolts in the ME. Don't know about what went on elsewhere, but the press of both countries I usually read (Spain and UK) had for weeks been full to the brim of articles, editorials and letters scorning the West for its hypocresy and its lack of resolve, an opinion that was particularly widespread among European citizens/residents of North African heritage. Obama's almost immediate back-peddling, Berlusconi's at best halfhearted approach and Merkel's pettyness would stand against any wider Western conspiracy, as would the fact of France's initial extremely poor response to the crisis in Tunisia -trying to be forgiven for that goes a long way into explaining Sarkozy's sudden rush to make the frontpages in this issue-.

Quite another thing is whether the European public opinion will be able or willing to force its leaders to keep supporting true change in the Maghrib, or whether, once forced to interfere, those leaders will resume playing their old games. While that risk is certainly there and is even likely, the fault will not lie with the fact that for once we stood on the right side of this struggle, but with our resolve (by 'our' I mean us citizens) to demand a true change in how our countries have dealt with third world affairs for much too long.